A considerable mnge of literature, both English and German, has gathered round the question of the authorship of the pastoral Epistles. The following are some of the chief works bearing on it. Erigli,sh: Dean Alford'~ 'Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles,' a very able and conclusive statement; " Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles," in the • Speaker's Commentary,' by Professor Wace; article by Dr. Salmon, ia the Ohristian Observer, 1877, p. 801; "Introduction to the Epistles to Timothy," in Dr. Schaal's • Popular Commentary on the .New Testament,' by Dean Plumptre; article on "Timothy Epistles," in 'Dictionary of the Bible,' by Dean Plumptre; 11 Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul," in ' New 'l'estament Commentary for English Readers,' edited by Bishop Ellicott, by Canon Spence; " Excursus on the Genuinenesa of the Pastoral Epistles," in the Appendix to voL ii. of Farrar's 'Life and Work of St. Paul;' "Appendix on the Date of the Pastoral Epistles," in Conybeare and Howaon's 'Lire and Epistles of St. Paul;' see also Paley's 'Horie Paulinie,' eh. xi.-xiii. Translated from the German: "Introduction to Pastoral Epistles," in Moyer's 'Commentary,' b_v Huther; "General Introduction to Pastoral Epistles," by Wiesinger, in Obhau.,en's 'Biblical Commentary.' The above all support the authenticity of the pastoral Epistles, and some of them with great ability and learning. Alford adds the following list: Hug, Bertholdt, Fiehnoser, Guerike, Bohl, Curtius, Klug, Heydenreich, Mack, Planck, Wegacheider, Beckhall.!I. Some German critics, as Schleiermacher, J. E. C. Schmidt, Ustin, Lticke, Neander, and Bleek, only reject 1 Timothy, but accept Titus and 2 Timothy as genuine (Davidson, vol. ii. p. 73). Of those which impugn the authenticity of the pastoral Epistles in whole, the following are the most important, Of English writers: Dr. Davidson, 'Introduction to the Study of the New Testament' (2nd edit., vol. ii. pp. 21-93). But Dr. Davidson states the case so unfairly as to make his argument valueless. The statement (p. 26), most weighty if true, that the theory of " Paul's release and second imprisonment arose from exegetical difficulties inherent in the Epistles them~elves," and that II the entire hypothesis is a fiction intended to prop up the authenticity of the writings," is absolutely unfounded in truth. The testimonies of Clement, the Muratorian Fragment, Easebius, Jerome, Chrysostoni, Veuantius Fortunatus, and others, to a journey to Spain and a second impriaoament, ii.ave nothing whatever to do with "exegetical difficulties." They may be vague and 1msatisfactory, hut they are an entirely independent evidence of a belief prevalent in the early Church, that St. Paul did go to Spain, and did undergo a second imprison- .neat at Rome. The pa.,;toral Epistles confirm this belief. Again, such criticisms as rhat Clement would not have said lMtf,,, of St. Paul " going" to Spain (p. 22), and 1hat .,.b .,.,p,,.,,. .,.ijs &va-, ..s means "the western part of the empire generally,'' are surely rnwortby of a scholar. There is also a strange incongruity in borrowing Baur's ,Iausible usertion that the phrase, d.,,,-,/Ua-.., rij, ,i,,.,3..,,,~,.,,., -,,11.:.0-, .., (p. 65), 18 due to THE rASTOHAL El'ISTLF.S. xxii i
Marcion, nnd yet placing the writing of the pastoral F,pisties between A.D. 115 a 11 d 126 (p. 69), when Marcion was a youth, and had writk11 n"thing. The ohj<·ction.,, too, to the _style and matter of tLe pastoral Epistles are 111 ..st captious, and for the mos~ part irrelevant. Tate's 'ContinuouH liidtory of St. Pan!' is quoted by Dr. Davidson. Of German writers the first w88 Eichhorn, 'Introduction to the New Testament; ' then came Baur'e elaborate works,' Die Pastoral-briefe des Apostel Paulus,' and 'Der Apostel Paulus;' De Wette followed him, more or less, in hiil 'Kurz-gefa,sten Ha11d- buch,' placing the Epistles, however, before the middle of the second centnry; theJJ Schott, Schrader (' Der Apodtel Paulus'), Credner (' Einleitung '); and, quoted by Dr. Farrar (' St. Paul,' ii. 514), Zelhr, Hilgcnfeld, Schenkel, Ewald, Hausrath, Renan Pfleiderer (' Pau J;nism '), Krenke!, ReusH (' Les Epitres '), etc. ' The question of authenticity really turns upon whether or no there are any distinct indications in the pastoral Epistles of the Gnostic heresy having then assumed the pro- portions that it attained under Marcion in the middle of the second century. The one suspicious phrase is the ,i,,.,.,9,a-,u .-;j, ,i,,vBo,voµov -y,<f,a-,,.,,, because J..-ne,a-.. , was the name of one of Marcion's works, and -yvwa-,, is the proper designation of the doctrine of the Gnostics. But there is not the slightest improbability in the peculiar style of teaching meant by ,l,,.,.,9/a-m having begun in the time of St. Paul, or in the conceited claim to exclusive -yvwa-&S having been already made by the precursor of Marcion and his brother heretics.